Why T-34 lost to PzKpfw III, but won against Tigers and Panthers. The revival of tank corps

43
In previous articles, we examined in detail the pre-war history formation of large connections tank troops of the Red Army, as well as the reasons why in August 1941 our army was forced to "roll back" to the level of the brigades.

The most important features


Briefly summarizing what was written earlier, we note that the tank brigade was the most familiar for the Soviet tank crews an independent connection of the Red Army armored troops, as they existed in them from the beginning of the 30s (though they were called mechanized brigades) until the very beginning of the Great Patriotic War, when the vast majority of brigades were disbanded to saturate the mechanized corps. The latter appeared in the Red Army at the very beginning of the 30s, but were later disbanded, due to the cumbersome and difficult management. It was assumed that they will be replaced by motorized divisions arr. 1939, and it was an extremely successful decision, as the staff of these units approached the Wehrmacht’s tank division of the 1941 model to the maximum extent. And she, this division, was perhaps the most advanced tool of maneuver warfare at that time.



Why T-34 lost to PzKpfw III, but won against Tigers and Panthers. The revival of tank corps

The nature of the Nordic, merciless to the enemies of the Reich ...


Unfortunately, such a successful undertaking was not developed. Apparently, under the influence of the successes of the tank forces of the Wehrmacht, the country in 1940 began the formation of tank divisions and mechanized corps, the bulk of which, alas, was lost in the first battles of the Great Patriotic War. Alas, the mechanized corps and tank divisions did not demonstrate high efficiency, and the USSR, which had lost considerable territory and was forced to evacuate the masses of industrial enterprises to the rear, could not immediately begin to revive them. In addition, the belligerent army experienced a great need for tanks to support rifle divisions, and all this together led to the fact that in August 1941, it was decided to abandon the formation of tank divisions and mechanized corps in favor of tank brigades.

For all its inevitability, such a return was not the optimal solution, because the tank was never self-sufficient on the battlefield - in order to make its use effective, support for infantry and artillery was necessary. But the tank brigade had almost none of the others, and interaction with rifle divisions and corps was rarely satisfactory for many reasons. Therefore, the leadership of the Red Army launched the formation of formations, larger than a tank brigade, and included not only purely tank units, but also motorized infantry and artillery — and as soon as at least minimal conditions arose.

New tank corps


As mentioned above, 1941 refused to form tank formations larger than the brigade in August. But already March 31 issued the directive of the USSR People’s Commissariat of Defense No. 1942ss, according to which four new tank corps should be formed in April of the same year. But with the pre-war mechanized corps (MK), despite the similarity in the names, the new tank corps (TK) had practically nothing in common.

If the MK of the 1940 sample was equipped with 2 tank and one motorized divisions, the new TC had the same number of brigades. In addition, the MK consisted of many parts of the reinforcement - a motorcycle regiment, several separate battalions, and even an air squadron, and in the TK there was nothing of the kind, only the management of the corps as part of the 99 man was provided.


Photo of the war years, alas, unidentified


Thus, the new TC was a much more compact connection. His two tank brigades, staffed by staff No. 010 / 345-010 / 352, had 46 tanks and 1 107 people. personnel, and the motorized rifle brigade on staff No. 010 / 370-010 / 380 did not have tanks at all, but it had at its disposal 7 armored vehicles, 345 vehicles, 10 people. In total, the tank corps was originally designed to include 3 tanks (152 KV, 100 T-20 and 40 T-34), 40 cannon with 60 mm, 20 76,2-mm mortar, 4 120-mm mortar, and out of the rest of the number of the number of out on the list. 42 82-mm cannons and 12 PTR, as well as 45 66-mm anti-aircraft guns. In addition, the TC was equipped with 20 cars. The number of personnel was 37 539 person.

Interestingly, these numbers do not fully coincide with the states of tank and motorized rifle brigades. So, for example, only in a motorized rifle brigade, 20 76,2-mm guns were laid for the specified state, but in addition to this, for 4, guns of the same caliber were to be in tank brigades. That is, all of them should have been 28, but it is indicated that there were only 20 in their TK. On the contrary, the sum of the number of personnel of the three brigades and 99 hull management people gives 5 465 people, which on 138 people. below the number of tank corps. One can only assume that in the corps brigades there were some insignificant differences from individual brigades of the same state.

In general, the new tank corps looked like rather strange formations, most of all resembling a “thinner” approximately twice mechanized division of the pre-war model. Their undoubted advantages were the presence in the compound of some field artillery and a fair amount of motorized infantry - in fact, apart from the motorized rifle brigade itself, and the tank brigades had one motorized rifle battalion, alas, stung to 400 people. At the same time, the new tank corps, by virtue of its small number, was, at least in theory, an easier-to-control unit than a tank or motorized division. But this, alas, its advantages ended. The major drawbacks were the insufficient number of control and the lack of supporting compounds, such as coherent, reconnaissance and rear, and in addition, the lack of their own fire weapons. While the German tank division of the sample had its own light and heavy howitzers of 105-mm and 150-mm caliber, respectively, the Soviet tank corps had to be content with only 76,2-mm artillery. Even with the main striking force - tanks everything was not in perfect order. Theoretically, of course, having in its composition heavy, light and medium tanks, the corps could form the optimal outfit of forces for solving any task, but in practice the presence of three types of tanks only complicated their joint use and operation.

First steps to excellence


Obviously, the state of the tank corps according to the directive of 31 in March 1942 was considered non-optimal even at the time of its signing. Therefore, already during the formation of the first TK, there were quite significant changes in its organizational structure - a third tank brigade of the same size was added, which brought the number of tanks in the hull to 150 units, and also the engineering mine company in 106 people. numbers.

Some shortcomings could be eradicated by changing the organizational structure of the corps. So, for example, as mentioned earlier, the individual tank brigades that had been formed since August 1941 had a mixed composition and included themselves 3 type tanks.


KV-1 tank from the 4 tank corps (47 tank tank brigade)


Most likely this decision was not so much the result of some tactical views, as the result of a banal lack of tanks in order to form homogeneous brigades. As is known, KV, T-34 and T-60, as well as T-70 used in some cases instead of them, were produced by various factories, and probably in the Red Army simply brought these tank "streams" together, avoiding delay in the formation of new connections. . In addition, KV was produced relatively little, so that the heavy brigades would be created more slowly than usual, and the compounds that were armed only with light tanks would be too weak.

And yet this was a deliberately non-optimal solution. Of course, in 1941-1942. for a separate tank brigade, the presence of a small number of KVs could provide certain tactical advantages. What, in fact, subsequently gave the Germans separate companies of heavy Tiger tanks, which, as part of separate operations, were separated from the heavy tank battalion and attached to other units. But this concerned a tank brigade, which could act separately, supporting, for example, the rifle corps, and not interacting with other tank units, and this had to be paid for with difficulties in maintenance and a lower mobility of the brigade’s tank fleet. But in the tank building, consisting of three brigades, "smearing" of heavy tanks by brigades, in general, did not make sense.

Therefore, in May, a redistribution of tanks in the hull took place, so to speak. If before the TK had three similar tank brigades, each of which had KV and T-34 and T-60, then since May 1942 were reorganized into one heavy, which should have counted 32 KV and 21 T-60, and just - 53 tanks and two medium-sized, each armed with 65 tanks (44 T-34 and 21 T-60). Thus, the total number of tanks in the three brigades reached 183 machines, while the proportion of light tanks decreased from 40 to 34,5%. Alas, such a decision proved unbearable for our industry, so already in June 1942 had to reform the heavy brigade, reducing its total number from 53 to 51 machines, and reducing the number of KV from 32 to 24. In this form, the tank hull consisted of 181 tank, including 24 KV, 88 T-34 and 79 T-60 (or T-70), while the proportion of light tanks even increased slightly, reaching almost 41,4%.

The formation of tank corps was literally explosive in nature. In March, 1942 was formed four TCs (from 1-th to 4-th), in April - another eight (5-7; 10; 21-24), in May - five (9; 11; 12; 14; 15; 16; 18; 27; 2; 8; 13; 23; 1942; 5; 1943; 31; 1943; XNUMX; XNUMX; XNUMX; XNUMX; XNUMX; XNUMX; XNUMX; XNUMX), in June - four (XNUMX-XNUMX and XNUMX), and besides, most likely XNUMX tank corps, XNUMX-th and XNUMX-th, the exact date of which the author is unknown, were created in the same period. Thus, in the period from April to June, the Red Army received an XNUMX tank corps! Subsequently, the rates of their formation were nevertheless reduced, but before the end of XNUMX, XNUMX tank corps were created, in February XNUMX r - two more, and finally, the last, XNUMX-th TC was formed in May XNUMX.

At the same time, oddly enough, but the quantitative growth of the tank corps was accompanied (for once, by all) with qualitative improvements, at least in terms of structure.

Formally, our tank corps, formed in April-June 1942, by the number of tanks could already be considered a kind of analogue of the German tank divisions. Indeed, in April, the regular number of tanks in the TK reached 150, and in May it exceeded 180, while in the German tank division, depending on the state, their number could reach 160-221 units. But at the same time, the German connection was much larger - 16 thousand people, against approximately 5,6-7 thousand people. tank corps with two and three tank brigades, respectively. The German tank division could have up to two regiments of motorized infantry, against one brigade of our mechanized corps, and much stronger artillery, both field and anti-tank and anti-aircraft. The German division had a lot more cars (even in terms of a thousand personnel), besides, in addition to the "combat" regiments, there were numerous support units that the April-June Soviet tank corps were deprived of.

In addition, the massive formation of tank corps, to a certain extent, faced the same problems as the pre-war formation of the 21 additional mechanized corps. There were not enough tanks, therefore, often, Lend-Lease vehicles, including Matilda and Valentine infantry tanks, got into the tank brigades. The latter would have looked very well in some separate battalions of support for rifle divisions, but they were extremely few for the needs of the tank corps, and besides, they introduced additional diversity, making the tank parks of the TK very "motley". In addition, during the formation of new shopping centers, they usually sought to take existing, trained, or even have managed to make war tank brigades, but the motorized rifle brigades were either formed with “0” or were reorganized from any third-party connections, like ski battalions. In this case, combat coordination between teams often simply did not have time to carry out.

But the situation was corrected literally on the move: new divisions were added to the tank corps, such as the reconnaissance battalion, equipment repair bases and others, although, unfortunately, it is impossible to say exactly when exactly what additions occurred. It is likely that such subunits of the TK were staffed as far as possible, but nevertheless, all this, of course, served to increase the combat effectiveness of the Soviet tank corps. As of 28 in January 1943, according to Decree No. GOKO-2791ss, the staff of the tank corps was established as follows:

Office housing - 122 people.
Tank brigade (3 units) - 3 348 people. that is, 1 116 people. in the brigade.
Motorized rifle brigade - 3 215 people.
Mortar regiment - 827 people.
Self-propelled artillery regiment - 304 people.
Guards mortar division ("Katyusha") - 244 people.
Armored Car Battalion - 111 people.
Communications battalion - 257 people.
Saperny battalion - 491 people.
Fuel supply company - 74 people.
PRB Tank - 72 people
PRB wheel - 70 people.
All with a reserve - 9 667 people.

Also, starting from August 1941 g, the struggle with the different types of equipment in tank brigades begins. The fact is that on July 31 of the same year the new staff of the tank brigade No. 010 / 270 - 277 was approved. Perhaps the main difference from previous states was a change in the composition of tank battalions: if before there was a 2 battalion with KV tanks, T-34 and T-60 in each, the new brigade received one battalion of medium tanks (21 T-34) and one mixed battalion in the 10 T-34 and 21 T-60 or T-70. Thus, the first step towards the unification of equipment was made - not only did only medium and light tanks remain in its composition, but also one battalion had a completely homogeneous composition.



It cannot be said that before this, the Red Army had no brigades at all, the battalions of which would consist of machines of the same type, but this was, in general, a forced decision, and such brigades were formed by the equipment of the Stalingrad tank factory when the front line approached the city - there was no time to wait for the supply of light tanks and KV, tank brigades went into battle almost from the factory gates.

Of course, the introduction of the new state did not lead to immediate and ubiquitous changes - it was already mentioned above that the newly formed corps still had to be assembled not with what was necessary for the state, but with what was at hand. But the situation gradually improved, and by the end of 1942, most of the tank brigades were transferred to staff No. 010 / 270 - 277.

The situation with a small number of motorized infantry was straightened to a certain extent by creating mechanized corps, which was launched in the 2-th half of 1942. In essence, such a mechanized corps was an almost exact copy of the tank corps, with the exception of the “mirror” structure of the brigades: instead of three and one motorized brigade had three motorized and one tank. Accordingly, the number of the mechanized corps significantly exceeded that of the “tank analogue” and accounted for, according to Resolution No. GOKO-2791ss from 28 in January 1943, 15 740 people.

And so, at the beginning of 1943 of the year ...


Thus, we see how the Soviet tank corps, revived in April 1942, gradually, by the end of the same year, gradually became a formidable fighting force, which, of course, was not yet equal to the German tank division of model 1941, but ... But you need to understand that the German Panzerwa also did not remain unchanged. And if the power of the Soviet tank corps gradually grew over time, then the combat capability of the German tank division was just as steadily falling.



Yes, in 1942, the Germans determined the number of tanks in the state of their divisions in the amount of 200 units, and this was an increase for those divisions that had previously been supposed to have 160 tanks (a two-batch tank regiment), but it must be understood that combat losses led to the fact that only a few divisions could boast such a number of armored vehicles. And in its normal state, the number of tanks in the Wehrmacht’s tank divisions often no longer exceeded 100 vehicles. “Hudela” and motorized infantry TD - although from June 1942 its regiments in the tank divisions received the sonorous name “Panzer-Grenadiers”, but later the number of companies in their mouths was reduced from 5 to 4.

As you know, the Germans for offensive operations on the environment (and not only) preferred to use tank and motorized divisions together. And if the Soviet tank corps, in essence, was supposed to solve similar problems with those that were solved by the German tank divisions, then the mechanized corps, to a certain degree, was an analogue of the German motorized divisions. At the same time, as we said above, the Soviet TK still “did not reach out” to the German TD. But the Soviet mechanized corps, according to the 28 established by 1943 in January, seems to be even better than the German MD - if only because it has its own tanks in the tank brigade, while the German "mobile" division had them completely devoid.

In general, throughout the 1942 of the city, the Red Army managed to form 28 tank corps. Interestingly, they were not thrown into battle immediately as they were manned, trying to give at least a minimum of time for training and combat coordination. However, for the first time the new tank corps entered into battle in June 1942, during the Voronezh-Voroshilovgrad strategic defensive operation, and all in all it was involved 13 tank corps. And since then in the history of the Red Army it would be very difficult to find a major operation in which tank corps would not take part.

By the end of the year, three tank corps (7, 24 and 26) were converted into Guards tank corps, which received the "reverse" numbering of 3, 2 and 1, respectively. Another 5 tank corps were reorganized into mechanized ones, and the total number of mechanized corps reached six. And only one tank corps was killed in battle, being almost completely destroyed near Kharkov. All this testified to the growth of the fighting qualities of the Soviet tank forces - especially if we remember how many tank divisions we lost in the first months of World War II, alas, causing only minimal damage to the enemy. The German Pancerwaffe still outnumbered our tank forces at the expense of their wealth of experience, and to some extent still due to better organization of troops, but this lag was not as significant as in 1941. In general, perhaps, to say that in the second war year, many of our tank corps learned to conduct successful defensive operations even when they were opposed by the best parts of the Wehrmacht, but offensive operations were still limping, although certain progress was made here.

You can also say that by the beginning of 1943, the Red Army created quite adequate tools of a maneuverable war "in the face" of tank and mechanized corps, which still lacked experience, hardware and which were still inferior to the German tank forces, but the difference in combat capability between them was already many times smaller than the one that existed at the beginning of the war, and indeed it was rapidly declining. And, moreover, the production of T-34 was increased, gradually becoming essentially the main battle tank of the Red Army, its childhood diseases were eradicated, so that the T-34 was becoming more and more dangerous machine, and its resource gradually increased. Quite a bit remained until the time when the X-NUMX of the ugly duckling T-1943 from the “weak-sighted” machine with difficult control, requiring a high qualification of the driver and a small engine resource, finally turned into a “white swan” tank War - a reliable and effective combat vehicle, which is so loved in parts, and which has earned deserved fame on the battlefield, but ...

But the Germans, unfortunately, also did not stand still.

To be continued ...
43 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +7
    April 23 2019 05: 38
    Thanks, very interesting, we look forward to continuing.
  2. 0
    April 23 2019 05: 54
    but in the future the number of companies in them was reduced from 4 to 5.

    Dear author, nevertheless how correctly - from 5 to 4 or from 4 to 3?
    1. +14
      April 23 2019 06: 23
      The author is also a man! wink The volumes that it gives out in VO, even with repeated editing, but allow a certain percentage of defects, which does not affect the readability and digestibility of the material, if the logic is not lame feel
      1. +18
        April 23 2019 06: 43
        I fully support Rurikovich - the steady trend of “VO” to kick the author behind the “comma” is deeply outraged.
        I myself am “grammless” and often admit “pearls”. About my friendship with the "telephone", and especially with its text editor, I generally keep quiet!
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk, a very solid and competent author, to catch someone on “inaccuracies” is not grateful! It is enough to simply point out the error and considering that Andrey accompanies his articles, it would be eliminated!
        Regards, Vlad!
        1. +5
          April 23 2019 07: 36
          Colleagues, why is it necessary to "kick"? ..
          So I read interesting, deep material and I see that something is wrong in the text: punctuation marks, cases, numbers are mixed up in places ... And I understand that a less attentive and less prepared reader can "swallow" all this, not perceive critically. That is why I am writing to the author: "Correct the error! Correct the inaccuracy!" etc.
          I regularly read materials at https://warspot.ru, so there comments about errors and inaccuracies are the norm. But they are as friendly as possible to the authors of the articles, and the moderators thank you for them - sometimes in return comments, and a couple of times they even unsubscribed to me in PM.
          Errors in the text are inevitable even by venerable authors - there are editors for this. But editing in the modern media is a complicated matter, therefore we, readers, become a part of this editing and help the authors to grind their works.
          Thanks to Andrey! Great materials, and generally a very non-trivial perspective.
          1. +4
            April 23 2019 09: 25
            Colleague, you are absolutely right, errors (factual, grammatical, semantic) should be indicated. True, there is one "but". I don’t know about other sites, but on AI, where dear Andrey and I used to live, the author has the opportunity to edit his texts after publication, but on topvar there is no such possibility. You need to contact the moderators, which is obviously not always convenient.
            1. +4
              April 23 2019 10: 14
              Greetings, dear Ivan!
              Quote: Senior Sailor
              but on topvar there is no such possibility.

              Exactly
            2. 0
              April 28 2019 00: 09
              Andrey is a very interesting author. Let it remain in the original. That's better. I do not agree with him regularly, but there is something to argue with. There are 500 more authors, as well as 100000 commentators, whom I simply don’t want to spend time with / by status. hi
        2. +3
          April 23 2019 10: 17
          Dear Vladislav, Andrew, but in this case, Andrei Sukharev quite correctly informed me about the slip of the slip. Of course, there are plenty of people who will be happy to see my eyes, and thank you for your support! But, in my opinion, this is not the case, especially since it is really unclear from the context, whether from 5 to 4, or from 4 to 3 hi
          1. +4
            April 23 2019 12: 19
            Dear Andrey from Chelyabinsk, if your namesake Sukharev mentioned such simple Russian words as “apparently”, “please”, “I guess that ....”, there wasn’t an attack on my part !!!
            From my point of view, Mr. Sukharev is right, but it is necessary to oppose and point out softer! Moreover, you always try to accompany your articles and the typo that you made was made unintentionally! If you knew about your work for several years, I’m sure that you would definitely make all your efforts to eliminate it.
            Regards, Vlad! Perhaps Andrei (Rurikovich) and I “went too far”, but how many guys and girls of Authors in VO left their own business because of banal typos! I will not give examples, but I will defend my beloved “PAPERS” until the last “BIT OF TRAFFIC” !!!
            R.s. Why be a native speaker of one of the richest languages ​​if you can use this tool!
        3. 0
          April 23 2019 20: 48
          I fully support Rurikovich - the steady trend of “VO” to kick the author behind the “comma” is deeply outraged.
          I myself am “grammless” and often admit “pearls”. About my friendship with the "telephone", and especially with its text editor, I generally keep quiet!
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk, a very solid and competent author, to catch someone on “inaccuracies” is not grateful! It is enough to simply point out the error and considering that Andrey accompanies his articles, it would be eliminated!
          Regards, Vlad!


          My dear, it seems to me that you are inflating an elephant from a fly. The article is beautiful, but this inaccuracy slightly confused me, and I considered myself obligated to draw the attention of the Author to this annoying moment.
    2. +6
      April 23 2019 10: 13
      Quote: Andrey Sukharev
      Dear author, nevertheless how correctly - from 5 to 4 or from 4 to 3?

      Thank you very much, of course, from 5 to 4 :)))
      1. +1
        April 23 2019 15: 52
        Andrey, in no case wanted to "kick the author" for the sake of a comment, I read your articles with pleasure!
  3. -7
    April 23 2019 06: 19
    "Apparently, under the influence of the successes of the Wehrmacht's tank forces, the country in 1940 began to form tank divisions and mechanized corps,"

    Yes, Stalin and Zhukov wanted to spit on German successes, the IVS needed their own instrument of success - the mechanized corps (essentially tank armies), to inflict a crushing blow on the enemy.

    "And, in addition, the production of the T-34 was increased, which gradually became, in fact, the main battle tank of the Red Army, its childhood diseases were eradicated, so that the T-XNUMX became an increasingly dangerous machine,"

    While the "childhood" diseases were eradicated, the T-34-76 by the beginning of 1943, almost to death fell ill with two adult diseases: the lack of anti-cannon armor and the lack of adequate weapons to destroy enemy tanks.
    1. +6
      April 23 2019 06: 47
      And the banal “war prevented”, as the version “doesn’t roll”!
      By the way, in the 41st, the modernized “thirty-four” with the “M” index was to go into the series. The Mariupol plant even cast towers, but sadly - they didn’t have time !!!
      Regards, Kote!
    2. +3
      April 23 2019 11: 31
      Quote: Jura 27
      Yes, Stalin and Zhukov wanted to spit on German successes, the IVS needed their own instrument of success - the mechanized corps (essentially tank armies), to inflict a crushing blow on the enemy.

      And therefore, the German states were taken as a model for the new BTV OSh - but not the real ones, but those that were reported by intelligence.
      And the number of formed buildings was also determined enemy capabilities according to intelligence.
      Quote: Jura 27
      While the "childhood" diseases were eradicated, the T-34-76 by the beginning of 1943, almost to death fell ill with two adult diseases: the lack of anti-cannon armor and the lack of adequate weapons to destroy enemy tanks.

      T-34 did not have protivosnaryadnoy armor already in 1940 - and according to our own experts.
      ... A-34 tank with an armor thickness of 45 mm at close range cannot successfully fight with 37-47 mm anti-tank artillery, therefore it does not correspond to its intended purpose, caused by an insufficiently clear idea of ​​the state of modern anti-tank artillery and an insufficiently substantiated approach to resolve this issue
      © engineer of the Leningrad experimental engineering plant No. 185 Koloyev
      Not in vain did the dancing begin around the withdrawal from production of the T-34 in 1942. and replacing it with a new medium tank.
      And as for the adequate gun - see Order 325:
      Tanks do not fulfill their main task of destroying enemy infantry, but are distracted by the battle with enemy tanks and artillery. The established practice of opposing our enemy’s tank attacks and getting involved in tank battles is wrong and harmful.

      The corps should not get involved in tank battles with enemy tanks, unless there is a clear superiority over the enemy. In the event of encountering large enemy tank units, the corps detaches anti-tank artillery and part of the tanks against the enemy tanks, the infantry, in turn, puts forward its anti-tank artillery, and the corps, obscured by all these means, bypasses the enemy tanks with its main forces and hits the enemy infantry with the aim of tear it from enemy tanks and paralyze the actions of enemy tanks. The main task of the tank corps is the destruction of enemy infantry.

      Germans lack of adequate weapons to destroy enemy tanks on their "three-ruble" and "fours" did not prevent in 1941 multiplying the BTV by zero, first of the border districts, and then the deep ones.
      1. 0
        April 23 2019 13: 23
        Quote: Alexey RA
        The lack of adequate weapons for the Germans to destroy enemy tanks on their "three-ruble" and "fours" did not stop in 1941 from multiplying the armored vehicles by zero, first in the border districts, and then in the deep ones.

        They were mainly opposed by tanks of outdated types with bulletproof armor. All the tools there were "adequate".
        1. +2
          April 23 2019 15: 12
          Quote: Gray Brother
          They were mainly opposed by tanks of outdated types with bulletproof armor. All the tools there were "adequate".

          Well, here's a fight near Alytus, where the T-34 and BT met with Czech tanks.
          It seems that the outcome is clear ... if you count only tanks against tanks. But the trouble is that it is not tanks, but structures that are fighting. And if the "Czech" against the T-34 has little chances, then the Panzerdivision on the "Czechs" against the TD-40 on the T-34 and BT has much more chances - because the Panzerdivision has motorized infantry (the next one with the tanks, and not trudging on foot to rear) and anti-tank artillery going along with tanks and motorized infantry.
          If we operate only with the tabular values ​​of millimeters of armor penetration and armor thickness, then only the T-34, even without the participation of the T-28 and BT-7, should quickly and without any noticeable losses completely defeat the German tank division, armed, recall, mainly ex-Czech 38 (t). However, the oncoming tank battle “wall to wall” did not work: in addition to the tanks, Alytus came the motorized infantry of the 7th Panzer Division and the anti-tank fighter division, which was armed with 12 50-mm anti-tank guns. The heavy battle lasted the rest of the day, the Germans' attempts to break out of bridgeheads further east were replaced by Soviet counterattacks. The situation changed only in the evening, when another German tank division, the 20th, approached the city. Only then did the Germans manage to advance forward from the bridgehead near the north bridge, bypassing the fighting units of the 5th Panzer Division from the flank and pushing them to the northeast. But it was a belated success - “that same long day of the year” ended, the darkness divided the opponents.
          The outcome of the first battle was unfavorable for the 5th Panzer Division. In the battle for Alytus, 73 tanks were lost. Of the 44 “thirty-four” participating in the battle, 27 were lost. German units reported 11 lost tanks.
          © Ulanov / Shein
          1. 0
            April 23 2019 19: 09
            Quote: Alexey RA
            there is motorized infantry (following along with tanks, not weaving on foot in the rear) and anti-tank artillery going along with tanks and motorized infantry.

            And it also played, yes. Plus the lack of communication and control in the Red Army, plus the dominance of enemy aircraft in the air. Soviet tanks were still on the march, and anti-tank guns were waiting for them.
    3. 0
      April 28 2019 00: 11
      Jura 27, that’s always a plus. Hold on, brother! ;)
      1. 0
        2 May 2019 12: 50
        Quote: Andrei Shmelev
        Jura 27, that’s always a plus. Hold on, brother! ;)

        THX !!!
  4. +6
    April 23 2019 06: 25
    No matter how many childhood books he read about the war, he never thought about the organizational nuances of connections request
    Respect to the author and article plus! hi
    1. +8
      April 23 2019 06: 52
      Particularly surprised, minus - under the above commentary by Rurikovich!
      Antiresno, who was fond of studying the structure of tank formations in our school years?
      Or, after all, Rurikovich, someone burned the tail !!! Yes
      Regards, Vlad!
      1. +5
        April 23 2019 08: 24
        I was addicted.
        I have always been interested in chronicle-documentary books, rather than simply fiction books. But since I liked military history in general, and the navy in particular, I was interested in planes, tanks, and small arms. The magazines "Tekhnika Molodoi" and "Modelist-Constructor" contributed greatly to this. Again, by virtue of my character, I was trying to figure out the intricacies of the OSHF of different armies at different times. I even tried to create an "alternative" OShS, but did not get further than the regiment))). I must say that at that time (mid-late 70s) it was tight with information, especially about the Soviet army of the post-war period. The polls of demobels "saved" the situation somewhat, but they did not give the general picture.
        I subscribed to the magazine "Marine collection" for several years and shoveled them to collect the names of the ships of the Navy, but in vain, but now there is a sea of ​​information for every taste and degree of access)))
        1. +1
          April 23 2019 18: 08
          Quote: kvs207
          I subscribed to the magazine "Marine Collection"

          And I wrote out. But he was very ideological request
          1. +1
            April 23 2019 22: 36
            I was interested in sections (names inaccurate) in this magazine: Fleet History and For Foreign Fleets.
            I subscribed to the magazine "Shipbuilding" for the same reason, but I simply did not understand the profile articles.
        2. +1
          April 28 2019 00: 14
          KVS207, I’m right there. Passed all the steps. Write a post - I guarantee a lot of good comments.
      2. +1
        April 23 2019 18: 04
        Quote: Kote pane Kohanka
        Particularly surprised, minus - under the above commentary by Rurikovich!

        "you can't be lovely" wassat
        Greetings, Vladislav hi
        Already with age, when the amount of reading was supposed to turn into quality, life threw me into the capital, where after every salary I visited a bookstore at the intersection of Surganova Street and Skorina Avenue (now Independence) at the Academy of Sciences. The Minsk period forced a different look at many events of WWII, and indeed wars, as such. Indeed, with the recognition of many organizational moments from the memoirs of both our commanders and Basurmans, it became clear why this or that battle or operation was lost ...
        So any new opinion is interesting in its own way, be it the structure of a tank corps or the nuances of armoring a battleship with the problems of Varyag vehicles. Yes smile
        Live and learn fellow
        1. 0
          April 28 2019 00: 33
          forcibly you will not be nice
          "wassat

          yes ok. I’m personally interested, the right to write: complete mess - I reserve myself, anyway, however, I’m personally interested hi
  5. +2
    April 23 2019 07: 05
    Thanks for continuing the cycle.
    Small remarks.
    So, for example, only in the motorized rifle brigade in the indicated state 20 guns of 76,2 mm were put, but in addition to this, 4 guns of the same caliber should have been in tank brigades. That is, there should have been 28 of them, but it is indicated that there were only 20 of them in the shopping center.

    In the motorized rifle brigade for all known states of 12 76,2mm guns, so the total was 20 guns.
    In essence, such a mechanized corps was an almost exact copy of the tank corps, with the exception of the “mirror” structure of the brigades:

    In their composition, MKs of the second formation were more likely infantry divisions reinforced with tanks and equipped with vehicles.
    1. 0
      April 23 2019 10: 24
      Quote: Potter
      In the motorized rifle brigade for all known states of 12 76,2mm guns, so the total was 20 guns.

      Hmmm ... Looks like you're right, thank you very much!
  6. +7
    April 23 2019 08: 42
    Photo of the war years, alas, unidentified
    Found identified, judging by the link to the RGAKFD.

    If you believe the signature, then it is somewhere near Smolensk, summer 1941.
    1. +3
      April 23 2019 10: 24
      Quote: Undecim
      If you believe the signature, then it is somewhere near Smolensk, summer 1941.

      Thank you very much!
  7. 0
    April 23 2019 08: 50
    The German Panzerwaffes were still superior to our tank forces due to their wealth of experience, and to some extent still due to the better organization of troops, but this lag was not as significant as in 1941.

    The Germans until the end of the war trained tankers as part of the battalions, and sent to the front as part of the battalion. Thus, improving not only individual training, but also combat coordination. And we cooked in teams, and often separate tankers went to replenish in different crews. Therefore, it was harder for us to act as part of units, which was leveled only by experience.
  8. BAI
    +3
    April 23 2019 09: 55
    Photo of the war years, alas, unidentified

    In the book Side Vladimir I. 19th day of the war
    This photo is signed as
    Western Front, July 1941

    And here
    https://armyman.info/bronetehnika/tanki/28234-kamuflyazh-tankov-rkka-zapadnoe-napravlenie.html
    Already a fully comprehensive title:
    The T-34 / 76 101 Panzer Division of the Red Army, supported by 45-mm anti-tank guns (model 1932 of the year), is preparing to attack the enemy. The tactical number "11" is visible on the turret of the tank. Western Front, July 1941 of the Year (RGAKFD).
  9. +1
    April 23 2019 14: 26
    It is informative, but it is a pity that the author does not like tables - in them the dynamics of the composition is more evident!
    Curious - there is evidence who initiated the formation of motorized divisions before the war and mechanized corps during?
    1. +2
      April 23 2019 14: 43
      Quote: ser56
      there is evidence who initiated the formation of motorized divisions before the war and mechanized corps during?

      I believe that in this connection it is necessary to raise and resolve the question of creating a shock army consisting of three or four mechanized corps, two or three air corps, one or two airborne divisions, nine to twelve artillery regiments. I believe that if two such armies act on the internal and external flanks of two fronts, they will be able to break the enemy’s front, will not allow him to come to his senses until the end of our operation and the development of operational success into a strategic one. ”
      Concluding this part of his speech, Porfiry Logvinovich said: “... They will object to my proposal, but please bear in mind that I have been working on this issue for several years and, it seems to me, have thoroughly studied it. If we abandon the use of shock armies, consisting of mechanized formations and supported by strong aircraft, we will be in a difficult position and will threaten our homeland. ” [6 - Personal archive of A. I. Eremenko.]


      P.L. Romanenko criticized Zhukov on a number of other issues. In particular, he noted that a two-three-day period for the preparation of operations is obviously not enough time. In practice, such a rush can lead to the disruption of the entire operation, as was the case in 1939 on the Karelian Isthmus with the operation of the 7 Army. According to Romanenko, the period of preparation for the operation should be set within 10-15 days. Dwelling on the issue of introducing mechanized corps into the breakthrough, he indicated that the depth of their strikes could reach 200-250 km.


      As Porfiry Logvinovich suggested, he had many opponents.

      Here you can read.
      http://www.41god.ru/nacalo_voiny/page,2,16-formirovanie-3-go-mexanizirovannogo-korpusa.html
  10. +1
    April 23 2019 19: 01
    I advise everyone who is interested in comparative characteristics, as well as in the production of German and Soviet tanks, to familiarize themselves with a small book by M. Baryatinsky "Tiger" against the T-34. Who will win? It's not even a matter of comparing the two vehicles, but of the "philosophy", so to speak, of the domestic tank industry. The problem of poor crew training and unreliable materiel existed until the end of the Second World War.
  11. +3
    April 23 2019 20: 34
    What kind of nonsense is allegedly about the loss of T 34 at the beginning of the war to German medium tanks. Red Army and resisted at the initial moment thanks to the T 34 and KV. Read Guderian. And the big losses were associated with useless planning of use, air strikes, the quality and quantity of German anti-tank artillery, and that is especially annoying, the lack of ammunition and fuel supply, and poor radio communications. Where do you see the effectiveness of German tanks. Only in one case, when they shot T 34 without shells and fuel. The tank did not lose its combat significance even at the end of the war against the backdrop of advanced Tigers and Panthers.

    oleg.chastov
    1. +4
      April 23 2019 21: 21
      Dear Oleg, I propose to read the Author’s cycle from the first to today's article, then I think you will lose your desire to be indignant!
      Trite Andrey (the Author) laid down in the title of the article the conclusion of the commission that conducted the comparative test of the T-34 with the Pz-III and Pz-IV at the training ground in Kubinka before the war.
      From myself I’ll add a jammed thesis: “tanks do not fight tanks”!
      Good evening!
    2. 0
      April 24 2019 12: 30
      Quote: oleg chastov
      Where do you see the effectiveness of German tanks. Only in one case, when they shot T 34 without shells and fuel.

      Well, here's Yents - a battle of five T-34s against two "three rubles" and one slow "four". Result: we lost four T-34s, the Germans hit one "three-ruble note". Moreover, one of the T-34s was shot for a long time by the "three-ruble note" following it - the T-34 crew simply did not see the enemy.
  12. 0
    April 30 2019 11: 25
    For some reason, no one pays attention to one important detail. By the time of the meeting with the "Tigers" and "Panthers" on our tanks appeared RADIO COMMUNICATION. This, by the way, largely explains the best combat properties of our fighters in the second half of WWII
  13. +1
    13 May 2019 09: 13
    Three rubles in Japan